Short Apology

This blog is still in its infancy, so I apologize for our lack of updates. More frequent postings are expected as soon as we get our shit together.

Also, there was a bit of confusion over commenting. Apparently I had this blog set to require "admin verification" of all comments, but hadn't actually bothered to verify anything. So, to the one, or possibly two people who tried to say something, I'm sorry.

In any event, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask for suggestions and feedback. We (my esteemed colleague Mark Pharris and I) want to set this project of ours in the proper direction, so anything is welcome from you, our hypothetical readers. We're going to start writing entries in several different "modes," and I'm curious as to which ones readers would prefer. Whether this blog be news-based or just a general resource for liberal politicos is up to whomever takes the time to write us. We're willing to write editorials, detail the personal biographies of prominent Washington politicians, or simply keep people up to date. Just talk to us.

Election Rundown: Part Two

As you know, there were five initiatives voted on this past Tuesday. The following are the results, and what they mean for us.

I-900: Passed 56.8%
While this site never wrote about this initiative, no one on this website supported it. I find it strange that Tim Eyman sponsored this initiative, because he’s always been in favor of low taxes and small government. This initiative simply added another layer of bureaucracy to the state government, and will cost him, you, and all the rest of us millions of dollars every year.

Politically, we should be worried that this passed by such a wide margin. It shows that the majority of Washingtonians do not trust our government to handle its money, nor do they trust the auditor’s office to do its job. No effort was made to defeat this initiative, and that’s not a good thing.

I-901: Passed 62.8%
This initiative is bad news for all the bars and restaurants in the state that already have to compete with tribal casinos. I would expect a significant number of these businesses to be closing by this time next year. Despite the outcry from the small business owners, fire marshals and police who will have to enforce this unenforceable law, and the employees everyone was trying to “help,” the vast majority of voters approved the law for purely selfish reasons. Again, there wasn’t the slightest hint of debate over this initiative. Nobody even tried to explain why it was a bad idea.

I-912: Rejected 53.4%
This one is very good news for just about everyone. As anyone who drives already knows, the roads in this state are falling to pieces. The gas tax was just about the last thing the legislature could find to foot the bill for all the major transportation projects in the state that need to happen. If this had been approved, the legislature would have either had to raise the sales tax, cut funding for other vital programs, or let the roads crumble. Polls showed as little as two months ago that this would have been approved. There was a strong, well-funded campaign against this initiative that deserves a fair bit of credit.

I-330: Rejected 55.0%
Voters will only vote for something they have little or no doubt in. The advertisements being run on this initiative lent ample doubt to voters. Putting caps on fines intended as punishment is a very bad idea, and Washingtonians were smart enough to realize that. This initiative would not have solved the problem of skyrocketing insurance premiums. In fact, it didn’t even address the problem. Once again, strong advertising won this one.

I-336: Rejected 59.5%
While I agreed, in principle, with what this initiative was trying to accomplish, there was no way the law itself would have worked. Very little advertising was done in the name of I-336, and the few ads I saw to reject it were cartoonish – caricaturing personal injury lawyers as greedy fat cats (while ignoring the fact that many PI lawyers accept cases pro bono). In the final analysis, I think voters couldn’t make heads or tails of the initiative itself. People will not vote for something they do not understand. While it’s possible that a strong advertising campaign from the bill’s sponsors could have made an impact, I’d rather see the initiative come back in a few years in a better worded, easier to understand version.

Election Rundown: Part One

Before we get into all the initiatives that passed and failed, I want to address something that the media and certain Democrats are saying. Yes, the Democratic Party scored two huge victories in New Jersey and Virginia, and the sound defeat of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ballot measures in California is great news. For those states.

The fact that President Bush has an approval rating of 37% doesn’t mean that the GOP is about to disappear. As much as we’d like to think that this is all part of a larger pattern that’s going to play out in the 2006 election, that simply isn’t the case. These were statewide races and don’t reflect upon the bigger picture. Just because we got lucky in Virginia doesn’t mean Democrats are going to get a majority in Congress by next year. We might see a few seats switch to our side, but it’s not going to be a landslide by any measure. And if they do switch, it won’t have much to do with this year’s election.

None of this will affect Washington. We’re going to be more affected by the issues facing the state, not national politics. If anything, I’m more worried about Washington state’s political future. The state is seeing signs of red, and that’s not good. By and large, the statewide initiatives would show that. We need to turn things back before they get any worse.

Tomorrow: Overview of initiative results, and what that means for us.

Fight Stupidity: Reject 330 and 336

Progress Washington has jumped on the "no on both" bandwagon--or should we say, ambulence--along with numerous advocacy groups, some doctors and nurses, the State Insurance Commissioner and anyone with common sense.

I-330 would rough up those evil, money-grubbing personal injury trial lawyers, by putting a cap on jury payouts at $350,000. This would supposedly--although there isn't any actual proof, and the Insurance Commissioner disagrees--bring down malpractice insurance premiums and keep doctors from fleeing. The only problem is that those jury payouts are punitive and not recompensary damages (meaning they are intended solely to punish the defendant), and limiting them would also limit the scope and the power of our judicial system. Besides, there already is a Constitutional Amendment forbidding excessive fines and bails, so if the doctors don't like it, they can take it up with the Supreme Court.

I-336, on the other hand, would take on those evil, money-grubbing doctors and insurance companies, by requiring, among other things, a "three-strikes" rule against doctors, and the reporting of all insurance rate hikes above 15% to the state. It would also add two superfluous members to the Medical Quality Assurance Commission, create another level of bureaucracy in an independent supplemental malpractice insurance program that would exist solely to pay claims and defense costs for eligible health care providers, and cost the state roughly $700,000 more per year.

Tort reform is an actual, pertinent issue, but the initiative process is not the way to force it through. The luxury of having a representative system of government is that we have the opportunity to elect officials that can review the state budget, pass laws, and amend policy. Most of the time, they marginally know what they're doing. Let our representatives do their job and, hopefully, force a settlement between docters, lawyers, and insurance companies that would be acceptable to all.